Dr. Tom Sunic and Dr. Kevin MacDonald discuss the crucial issues of evolutionary theory vs Judeo-Christianity, the Meaning of Paganism vs Polytheism, and the role of ‘white nationalists’ in these declining hours of the West. Please tune in! This is an indispensable radio show hosted by two prominent academics. Inform your friends and colleagues!

Edit:Here is a related link to a column on religion written by Dr. Sunic in 1994.

Comments

71 Responses to “The New Nationalist Perspective: Sunic and MacDonald on Christianity (Part 1 of 2)”

Mark on
July 22nd, 2009 12:34 pm

Dr. Sunic, great show.

It seems Dr. MacDonald wasn’t willing to explore Christianity’s faults very far. I don’t think he wants to be seen as anti-Christian as he said. If he is not willing to discuss it in depth there’s not much you can do.

I find the subject intriguing myself, and I am willing to analyze ourselves in every way to discover what must be done to save our people. However many people are unwilling to fault Christianity, other than to say it was the Jews that changed it. I think there’s more to it.

Maybe MacDonald is not the one to discuss the subject with, but I enjoy your show nonetheless.

Drew on
July 22nd, 2009 2:27 pm

While I have generally enjoyed Mr. Sunic’s broadcasts, this “interview” with Kevin MacDonald can barely qualify as an interview. Mr. Sunic did most of the talking, seemingly trying to frame a complicated question that he wanted Mr. MacDonald to respond to in a way that he, Mr. Sunic, wanted to hear, especially concerning Christianity.

I would like to give some constructive advice to Mr. Sunic for conducting future interviews–ask a simple question and then get out of the way and let your guest talk–and don’t interrupt him constantly because you feel he’s responding in the way you are not desiring. The fact that your questions are so convoluted and complicated suggest to me that you yourself are not clear on where you stand, and thus, you can hardly expect your guest to be able to respond in a lucid manner.

Mark on
July 22nd, 2009 3:53 pm

Come down off your high horse, Drew. Seriously, have more respect for Dr. Sunic.

I think Dr. Sunic did fine, although it did seem Dr. MacDonald was unwilling to go too much into analyzing Christianity in a negative way.

To put it another way, I don’t think there’s a pagan bone in Kevin MacDonald’s body. :)

Bill on
July 22nd, 2009 10:04 pm

KMac is always a great guest. I’d also like to hear Tom Sunic have Matt Johnson as a guest.

Skeeter on
July 23rd, 2009 5:00 am

Isn’t the kind of racial “protectionism” that Kevin MacDonald and many other so-called white nationalists advocate dysgenic? I mean, what’s the point? If most white people are incapable of seeing through propaganda that openly calls for their destruction as a race isn’t it better just to let these people die out? Whites who are naturally ethnocentric (capable of calculating their long-term ethnic interests) are going to survive no matter what. We don’t need all these brain-dead Christian couch potatoes to ensure the survival of our race.

Gibson on
July 23rd, 2009 6:26 am

Too much “devil’s advocate” and taking ten minutes just to frame the question. We want to hear what Kevin MacDonald has to say, not what Tom Sunic wants him to say. Get Dietrich to interview MacDonald – that would be a great show.

Annis Isbell on
July 23rd, 2009 8:17 am

You do need Christians and white people in the South. Turns out everything David Duke said was true but his name is mud outside of certain places in the South.

We’re white people who are racially aware. The rest of the white people in the nation are Politically Correct and ashamed and afraid to be proud of being white. They won’t protect and defend their race, they are the ones who will sell us out.

I think the movers and shakers of nationalism may have come to realize that or else they would not be including us. If they could have their movement without us I’m sure they would. The Scotch Irish don’t exactly enjoy sterling reputations, we might not be much but it could be that we’re all there is regarding the issue of saving the white race.

Mr. Sunic wasn’t playing “devil’s advocate” as he claimed. Its pretty obvious that he hates Christianity and was seemed very frustrated that he couldn’t manipulate KMac into blaming Christianity for all of our problems. I wish Sunic would at least be honest about his position instead of playing these kinds of games.

Luis Magno on
July 23rd, 2009 6:37 pm

If we are talking ethno-cultural hegemony as a precondition for European-American ethno-racial and ethno-political unity there is, of course, a place for all religion but not just for Christianity.

The Founders were deists. They were nominally Christian as they lived and grew up in a Christian religious context but they were not believers in religious dogma. They were sovereign individuals capable of creating a sovereign republic, the first and greatest in modern times. We are their fortunate cultural heirs.

The Founders were eminently moral and ethical persons whether inside or outside a Christian or any other religious context. They were creative individuals who believed in God as Creator and in men (and women) as beings created in God’s image and thus partaking of the gift of creativity as human beings.

They functioned in a Christian context but not as Christians in the sense of being believers in Christian dogma which changes from sect to sect and from time to time. They were principled men not dogmatic men. They were Prometheans. Our challenge is to live up to even a fraction of their greatness.

Bill on
July 23rd, 2009 7:36 pm

I agree that many of the founding fathers were often deist in their beliefs, but then for me, America really didn’t begin with the Ben Franklin and his associates. After all, white people had been building the country for almost three centuries BEFORE the United States constitution came into existence. Its simply not true that the religious beliefs of the founders represented the majority opinion. I think the average person was probably MORE devoutly Christian than some of the founders. The negative attitude of people like Tom Paine towards Christianity wasn’t a very significant opinion in the country.

Paul on
July 23rd, 2009 9:11 pm

Tom Sunic needs to stop “grandstanding.”

We know he speaks great English. But he needs to either lessen his ego or raise his confidence. Because, for some reason he’s using 30 words when only 3 are necessary – and so he’s killing what should be going on.

Either that – or extend the show to 5 hours.

As for Kevin MacDonald?

I own all of his books and have found them to be of great value.

So…give him his own show. Then we can hear him talk freely. And he won’t be wasting his time clearing his throat into the mike, in the forlorn hope that Tom Sunic might just let him in.

Dickstein on
July 23rd, 2009 9:42 pm

Totally agree with Paul. Tom, love your insight but seriously, no need for all the disclaimers and clarifications of clarifications. Just say it for crying out loud.

Ba Racknophobe on
July 23rd, 2009 11:07 pm

Sorry guys, but this Sunic character is a fake.
What kind of supposed nationalist is he anyway?
He’s a Croat who likes Serbs.
A bit like David Irving, an Englishman who likes Germans.
I don’t say they should hate these peoples, but really, Serbia attacked Croatia and Germany attacked England. Whatever the background to those conflicts, how in the hell can you root for those who bombed your country?

I move that Sunic is deranged. No matter how intelligent and erudite. I think it is the same with Irving.

I wouldn’t trust Sunic on my side in a bar fight. He’d probably be preoccupied with ‘seeing farther than the immediate conflict’ and explaining, or convoluting, or entangling himself with parantheses inside parantheses inside yet more parantheses in absurdum. All the while I’d be getting my face bloodied.

By your reasoning, you should be out championing all of the USA’s pointless wars in the Middle East because it’s your team.

f on
July 24th, 2009 4:40 am

I agree with Drew and the multitudes. This “interview” was very disappointing. I thought of Alex Kurtagic’s description of the left’s overblown phraseology – big talk used to sneak unpopular ideas past the censors. Is Sunic guilty of this?

Anyway, it was a demoralizing audio.

****Ba Racknophobe, Germany did not attack England first. Only after England bombed German civilians did Germany return the favor. Btw, David Irving rules.

Gibson on
July 24th, 2009 7:35 am

Let’s not be unfair on Tom Sunic. He’s a good White Nationalist, a great thinker, and most of us agree with most of his views. We might disagree on some details, but it’s good exercise to have one’s ideas challenged occasionally – that’s why we listen. Thank you Tom, for all your shows. But, VOR, I would like to hear more from Kevin MacDonald!

Paul on
July 24th, 2009 9:17 am

Ba Racknophobe,

Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939.

Later, Churchill became Prime Minister on the 10th May 1940 and within 24hrs had the RAF bombing civilian targets in mainland Germany.

Hitler spent almost 4 months trying to negotiate peace before Germany began retaliating in late August – early Sep 1940.

Ba Racknophobe,

The book: “Bombing Vindicated” by J M. Spaight will help you with the some facts about WW2 bombing..

I think KMac is plenty willing to explore negative aspects of Christianity, he’s just not willing to pander to the Christianity haters who want to blame it for all of our woes. That’s my experience with Christianity haters too. They want to use Christians and Christianity as convenient scapegoats to avoid putting responsibility where it belongs – on all of us!

Our people need to face the fact that at a very basic level our problems are due to demographics. Every white couple who didn’t produce at least six offspring shares blame. Any white person who didn’t even produce one offspring, well, fuck you, you don’t get to blame anyone. That’s right. Because when you look at the period where we were secure, you will find every white family was producing six, eight, ten or more offspring. It wasn’t Christianity that created the problem, since Christianity condemns birth control and says to have many children! But people don’t listen. You can’t blame Christianity for the fact that our race is dying for lack of births.

Nobody wants to deal with this problem because we’re all guilty. Much easier just to blame Christians.

Mark Lavarre on
July 24th, 2009 10:16 am

Ba Racknophobe, I think you are confusing genuine pro-White nationalism with worship of the nation-state.

You say Germany attacked England? WRONG, England declared war on Germany which caused the Germans to respond to it by war with England.

george wells on
July 24th, 2009 2:19 pm

Tom, thanks for your show and working with us to broaden our views of the situations around us. Identifying ourselves, who we are, and the forces working upon us are essential for us to wake up and do something to save ourselves.

I believe Kevin was saying that Christianity could be used to defend white people and has been used as such in the past. But I am with you in that there is something deeper within Christianity that needs to be explored and seen more clearly.

By looking at myself as a “Christian” it seems to me that Christianity, its teaching and abuse of the minds of children, both fractures the psyche of the child and then requires a savior to hold that psyche together. Christianity makes for weaker and more easily manipulated people, making fertile soil for psychopathic self-appointed leaders to rule over.

Christianity domesticates people, turning them from free and self-directed to sheep to be sheared by a “SHEPHERD.” Universalism doctrine of the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man, could be considered the staff of the shepherd to keep the flock in line.

One of the things Evola brought to my mind was that what we see could not occur because of the jews alone. There must be an occult power behind this whole process which has been going on for thousands of years so far.

There must be a process of decay going on here, which has been going on for some time now. Unless we clearly identify the process, we cannot administer the therapeutics to reverse the process.

I would say a fractured soul needs monotheism like a duck needs water. Perhaps Christianity does not appeal to most people because it does not fulfills their soul’s desires. Perhaps they are not fractured enough to find it fulfilling.

Maybe something fulfilling is what needs to be brought forth. I’m wondering whether a Pagan revival is needed, a revival of life is needed to counter the culture of death we presently live in. We are living in a soulless culture today. There may be many of our spiritual countrymen that need their hearts filled from the storehouses of our ancestors.

I believe we have lost that spark which the ancients had because its memory has been so thoroughly destroyed and buried. Perhaps it can be restored.

george wells on
July 24th, 2009 6:25 pm

Bill,

I FIND THE TERM “CHRISTIANITY HATERS” OFFENSIVE!!!!

Yes, individual responsiblity must not be denied. I find the problem with mind control systems is that individual responsibility is trampled upon. The believer often needs to act according to the moral conscience of another rather than according to his own moral conscience. Responsiblity to act according to one’s own conscience is not encouraged in christianity but rather to act according to THE BOOK or at least someone elses interpretation of that book.

Because so called christians don’t read the bible, they really can’t say whether they believe in it or not. My experience is that most people just believe those parts that agree with their own personal views. If they really looked at the WHOLE BIBLE, they might not be able to accept it. Or maybe they could be a 50/50 christian.

Also, from my reading of the bible, celibacy is a virtue, divorce and remarriage is a vice. Both of these contribute to a reduction of offspring by whites. The universalism, that is the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of men doctrine of Jesus, leads to the ministry work amount the non-white world. When non-whites become christians intermarriage will occur and intensify overtime. Part of the reason being that a certain portion of the white population is just incompetent to marry in a white society due to intelligence, appearance, lack of social skills, and mental/emotional defects. These find it much easier to marry to a non-white spouse. And they have many offspring.

I live in Utah where non-white converted mormons from all over the world congregate. Mormon’s marry who they will if the other is mormon.

OK, I stand corrected, somewhat.
I did not say Germany attacked England FIRST. But attack it did.
From the perspective of an English boy, who saw the enemy planes bomb his surroundings, I’d say Irving is a fool to feel warmth for those who were doing their best to kill him. If that is mindless support for your country, then yes, I think one should mindlessly support one’s country.

Sunic’s position is similar, except that the number of Croatian troops, planes and tanks entering Serbia was exactly zero. Sunic reacts to the destruction of the cities of his country, mass-rapes of its women, expulsions and killings of his people with a meek ‘we should all have been friends instead’. What a sorry vagina of a man.

How can you be a supposed WHITE nationalist, when you’re not even a nationalist for your own people? What is the worth of such white nationalism? If a conflict with non-whites happens in the future, will his reaction once again be ‘we should have been friends instead’? No kidding? We pretty much know that already, don’t we? Mr Overblown Professor. When your house is on fire, you’ll want help extinguishing the fire, not advice on how one should not play with matches.

Sunic and Irving both lack in character, not in IQ. The end result of their deficiencies is worse than if it had been the other way around.

Bill on
July 24th, 2009 9:06 pm

To George Wells:

Your kind of questions is why I would like to see Mr. Sunic have Matt Johnson (Orthodox Medevialist) as a guest where such issues could be discussed by someone who actually knows Christian history and doctrines.

Aaron on
July 25th, 2009 2:05 am

If MacDonald is unwilling to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of Christianity for our people, Matt Johnson certainly isn’t going to be the one to analyze it either. I think the perfect person for Dr. Sunic to get on his show for this type of discussion would be Alain de Benoist.

Tom Sunic on
July 25th, 2009 8:32 am

testing

Bill on
July 25th, 2009 8:46 am

“If MacDonald is unwilling to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of Christianity for our people, Matt Johnson certainly isn’t going to be the one to analyze it either. I think the perfect person for Dr. Sunic to get on his show for this type of discussion would be Alain de Benoist.”

So unless someone is willing to blame Christianity for the present mess, then they’re not being honest? Sounds like you don’t want a discussion, you want a Christianity-bashing session.

Bill on
July 25th, 2009 9:43 am

“Also, from my reading of the bible, celibacy is a virtue, divorce and remarriage is a vice.”

No offense, but yours is another typical flawed argument, namely, presenting one’s private interpretations of scripture as “Christianity.” First of all, Christian doctrine is not determined by either your or mine reading of the Bible. Besides, Christian doctrine is not determined solely by the Bible. Think about it, Christianity existed BEFORE the Bible. The early Christians didn’t have the Bible, since the Bible as we know it didn’t exist until the fourth century! How can Christianity be based only on the Bible, let alone anyone’s personal interpretation?

Certainly, the Bible is the main source of Christian doctrine, but definitely not the only source and above all is to be understood within the context of tradition, not by private interpretations. When you read the Bible don’t simply assume that however you interpret some verse is necessarily correct. Many people have gone wrong by that process. Generally, arguments derived through such a process have a false premise. In contrast, one could take some verse or topic from the Bible along with its respective traditional interpretation and discuss that. Then there could be a legitimate discussion. But I hardly ever see any antagonist do that.

KMac kept making the point that what passes for Christianity today is different from the Christianity of fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years ago. This is completely true. But Sunic obviously didn’t want to hear that since accepting that argument undermined his position.

I’ll mention that William Pierce, who certainly was no friend of Christianity, was at least honest enough to distinguish between the trendy, deracinated, liberal, Jew-loving “Christians” of today and what he sometimes referred to “old-fashion Christians.” Even he recognized that Christianity had undergone a process of corruption like virtually all of our institutions.

Tom Sunic on
July 25th, 2009 9:59 am

test

Tom Sunic on
July 25th, 2009 10:06 am

Ok folks, I get it. Some of the points are well taken, some are outright insults. I do not buy it.
1. I am not a professional radio host like W. Blitzer or L. King. I am a prof. and author. This is how I view my shows. Most of what I am talking about is contained in my books and pieces. So read my books, my pieces, or buy them first. There is no one way formula and easy answers. You will get a better idea, especially re my views on monotheism vs polytheism.
2. I will have KMD again on my shows. I will then give him an hour to talk and carry out his monologue.
3. My shows are discussions, not interviews. I am trying to engage my guests in debates not into mutual brownnosing.
4. No sweat, I will get AdB, my friend ( Alain de Benoist on my show). For that matter, remember, read first his and my prose before you tune in. TOQ will have his piece shortly in my translation – I hope so. Or check Telos – if you can’t read French. Or the Occidental Observer.
5. Substance: Folks ask me if I am “religious, agnostic or atheist.” I do not know. Does anybody of you know who he is now? The word “religion” comes from Latin “lego” “legere”, which means “ to bond” and “bondage.” In the 1st Rome, Christians were viewed by the Roman “religio” as a wild fanatic non- religious non European, Oriental pack of people opposed to any racial and any old spiritual bondage.
6. Indeed, being religious does not mean necessarily worshipping proto- or post- Bedouin gods – ergo, I am sure some TV Christian evangelicals could do a better VoR job on that subject matter than me – at least for some of you.
7. I am religious in a sense that I believe in the sense of the sacred, but no to the point of becoming a vocal disciple of the Levantine heritage. After all our primeval homeland bondage is Europe not the Middle East. Right? Again read my books – or better yet, buy them. I must also pay my bills.
8. Being born in a devout Catholic family some of my favorite authors are Christians, incl. Fjodor Dostyevski, a convert. A very fine gent, Dr Johnson, does a good job on the VOR. FYI. You may want to read FD’s essays on Jewry. Surprise, surprise what you will find. Do some library footwork, not internet forum chit chat with astral pseudonyms.
9. I know Croatia well. But leveling criticism against Serbs on the air would not be fair. I’d need a Serbian sharp interlocutor for that. Do not tell me what Croatia did or should have done. I was partly involved with bringing volunteers from S. Francisco, Sydney, Santiago de Chile, Stockholm, Stuttgart, you name it, to Croatia during the war here.. Those who are to blamed are Versailles (1919) and Potsdam ( 1945) world improvers – certainly not Serbs, Croats etc. – who had doctored up that crazy multicultural entity know as ex-Yugoslavia.
Something reminiscent of tomorrow’s America..? Hah?

Best wishes.
Tom

Luis Magno on
July 25th, 2009 3:21 pm

As I was about to say: Behind the shadows of sense perception on the wall inside Plato’s cave is the substance of reality casting those shadows from outside the cave.

george wells on
July 25th, 2009 3:36 pm

Bill,

“Also, from my reading of the bible, celibacy is a virtue, divorce and remarriage is a vice.”

No offense, but yours is another typical flawed argument, namely, presenting one’s private interpretations of scripture as “Christianity.” First of all, Christian doctrine is not determined by either your or mine reading of the Bible.:

Comment”

My experience is that the phrase “private interpretation” is just another tool the christian dogmatist uses to assert that his interpretation of christian dogma is correct.

My soul or conscience says to read it myself and interpret it for myself. No king or priest stands between me and the supernal.

From your comments it is clear that you really want or need someone decide for you and stand between you and god.

I suspect that you are one of those who would ride with Cromwell to vanquish the heretics.

Bill on
July 25th, 2009 3:58 pm

“My soul or conscience says to read it myself and interpret it for myself. No king or priest stands between me and the supernal.”

Again, how you interpret any scripture is irrelevant. What has been accepted understanding and practice is what matters in the context of this discussion.

george wells on
July 25th, 2009 4:08 pm

Bill, you prove my point.

George on
July 25th, 2009 5:52 pm

This is a great show!
There are certain pitfalls within Christianity that must be addressed.
Finally someone is beginning to approach the core of the problem.

Gerry Robinson on
July 25th, 2009 6:14 pm

Enjoyed your talk with Prof.Macdonald on Christianity.Opinions on the crises that the White man is in and who is behind that crises doe’s have many variation’s,but Iike yourself I believe only Racial unity will save us.
Prof.Macdonald opinion on Winston Churc hill was I believe correct,through his ego admit not the only one my country England and on a broader horizon the White race face obliivion.

Luis Magno on
July 25th, 2009 11:11 pm

I posted the following comment on the RBN website with a reference back to this web blog. This blog is where the action is.

On the ground the relevant question is: What are we willing to give in return for limited legal immigration and zero illegal immigration in negotiations with our Mexican and Mexican-American counterparts?

I say grant the Mexican Americans ethno-cultural sovereignty grounded on an Hispanic foundation rather than on an Indigenous foundation as it is now and in return the Mexicans agree to strict legal immigration quotas and self-policing and the Mexican Americans become a formidable ally in turning back the Zionist Tide. It’s doable. We can make it happen with political support and in cultural survival mode.

The oligarchy promotes all sorts of sophistries in opposition to a potential ethno-racial state of cultural sovereignty and political parity for the American races. But the die has been cast and if the White race is to survive in America this generation has no choice but to follow the proven survival path of focused and intelligent humility and repentance for the sins of the fathers in order that the next generation of European Americans and their children may live and achieve greater victories in defense of the White European-American Race.

After all we are still the numerical majority and potentially the political majority in the Congress and in the Presidency and we possess the greater wealth though we are the least socially and culturally organized.

On October 12th we can begin taking back sovereign control of our European-American cultural heritage and its historical icons beginning with the Spanish Admiral of the Ocean Seas, Governor and Captain General Dn. Cristóbal Colón (Christopher Columbus) and at the same time expose the Red Tide as a hostile flanking movement that responds to the dominant faction of the ruling Judeo-Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.

For a heads-up follow the discussions on the Voice of Reason’s “The New Nationalist Perspective” radio talk show with newly naturalized Dr. Tom Sunic, academic, author and former Croatian diplomat, at http://reasonradionetwork.com/?p=3598.

Ba Racknophobe on
July 27th, 2009 11:10 am

The Romans viewed the Christians as non-European? I think not. The notion of Europe wasn’t even invented at the time. Europa was at the time merely imagined as that woman having sex with a bull in Greek mythology.

In the beginning, the word Europe, meaning ‘broad-faced’, denoted a part of central and northern Greece. Much later the notion came to symbolize only the Catholic world in what we today consider Europe. The 12 golden stars in the EU flag come directly from that heritage. Like in this picture:

When Hitler was in power he denied the East European Slavs their europeanhood. In nazi propaganda they were Mongols, while the 3rd Reich Germany fought its wars for the Aryan (white) race and European Culture. This may have been a spoof of Napoleon’s claim that the purposes of France’s wars was to spread French and supposedly European culture. Slavs who were European to Hitler were Germany’s and Austria’s own Slav minorities, like the Sorbs, Slovenes and Croats and also allied nations of Slavic stock, like Slovakia and Croatia.

In the British Empire, the words European and white were pretty much interchangeable, but not entirely. Their meaning floated from place to place and from time to time. Many obviously white peoples, like the Irish and the Italians, and mainly other white non-Protestants weren’t always recognized as white, because to be considered white meant to belong to the ruling race.

The Anglos of the times wanted to keep that connection to supremacy to themselves. Much like Hitler did with the East European Slavs. On a side note, those Slavs, the Poles, Ukranians and Russians could and can any day beat Germans in “whiteness” if it ever comes to such a competition. They’re blonder, taller and more blue-eyed than Germans are.

In former Rhodesia Turks, Armenians and certain (I suppose not too swarthy) Arabs were considered white. But English style class snobbery prevailed nevertheless. There’s a story of some Rhodesian fighter pilot of Greek heritage who received some very fine medal for bravery in battle. But they still wouldn’t accept him in their gentlemen’s club. Seems he was white enough for their air force but not white enough for their silly club. Whether it was for him being Greek or some other reason I don’t really know, but he wasn’t too pleased and returned the medal.

Today Europe has come to mean mostly the political union EU. And if ever there is talk about the Europeans, the current propaganda always makes sure to throw in a couple of negroes or other non-Europeans into the picture. Just to dilute the meaning of europeanness, I guess.

Tom Sunic on
July 27th, 2009 6:48 pm

Re Racknaphobe, aerophobe, or whatever.
I have no time to dispel liberalo-communist myths and hagiography. Open up the yellow pages when in the Rhine basin ( lots of Poles emigrated to Germany after 1833), or when in Vienna. You will find literally millions of Slavic names following German surnames. One million Russians under Wlasow fought in the Werhrmacht. Not a single official line against Slavs will you ever find in NS propaganda, or even racialist literature.
For that matter you gotta learn German well and spend time sifting over thousands of banned titles in Germany, not reading “experts.” The term “Nazi” was a derogatory word in NS Germany. Never used officially in the Third Reich. It got popular in US high education and among Hollywood nutsies. I do not blame you- but let us avoid epistolary and time consuming exchanges unless firmly grounded.

absurdity buster on
July 27th, 2009 9:05 pm

Mr. Sunic, you are very conceited, yet very superficial in some matters. Your ignorance of what Christianity really is, is truly appalling, as is your equal ignorance of paganism, the old European heritage. There is much more to it than screaming “egalitarianism” every few seconds. For most people (including myself) it doesn’t matter whether some heritage is “Levantine” or not, what matters is whether it corresponds to the truth or not. I won’t reject Truth because some bloated “intellectual” tells me it is “un-European”. To the knowledge of truth we come by the way of a deeper spiritual insight, through our heart and mind, whereby Bible (and tradtion!) gives us guidelines. Christianity is not Bible-thumping, as you seem to imply in some cases, it is unbroken line of faith, testimony and tradition, from 1st century. You are also wrong in your statement that Christianity only Jewish, since also the Greek thought participated in its formation from the very beginning.

Not this crap again. I hope that VoR doesn’t allow the anti’s to attack the hosts with knit picking. They systematically tend to pull out ONE thing in a one hour or four hour show and cry about it, even though they’re wrong.

Tom, I love your shows keep up the great work…

Ba Racknophobe on
July 27th, 2009 10:07 pm

Sloppy with the facts again, aren’t we? A man who believes that the Versailles Treaty raped the women in his land can believe in anything I guess.

Sunic, I do understand German already and I don’t need to sift through thousands of volumes to state some simple facts. That’s your job it seems. What you say about Polish names and the Russian general is true, but it does not nullify the fact that there indeed was anti-Slav sentiment among the nazis.

And precisely ‘nazi’ is the generally accepted term we use in modern English to denote the German (and other) national socialists. So don’t try being übersmart. Cause you’re not. You’re just overeducated, boring and dishonest.

May I suggest some urgent therapy for you Sunic? You seem to suffer from the Michael Jackson syndome. Disliking being what you are. A Christian for instance.

Poor Michael Jackson. He was black, but he wanted to be white. He was male and wanted to be like a female. He was a grown up but he wanted to be a child.

God knows what mores plagued him. God knows what’s troubling you Sunic. But you should straighten it out. You’re not too old yet. Do it.

First after that you can start fighting for the survival of the White Race or whatever you find a worthy struggle.

You raise several contrarian points and several interesting points, and that is welcome. What is not welcome, however, is questioning the integrity/sanity of hosts who are volunteering their time to create original programming on VoR. The latter is uncalled for. Continue to comment if you wish, but please keep the commentary within respectful bounds. Thanks,

I send similar advice to others.

-Mike

absurdity buster on
July 28th, 2009 5:04 am

@Racknophobe

Yes, Mr. Sunic is educated, but seems to interpret in a wrong (sometimes too literal) way the things he read. It requires wisdom to understand properly books and articles one reads. Education and intelligence are good things, but wisdom is more important. The best case is when wisdom is combined with education. It doesn’t appear to be the case with Sunic, who lacks the former. In other words, Mr. Sunic is an ideologist. I am not even sure about his level of education in the true sense, given his shallow view of what Christianity is.

Mr. Kevin MacDonald stands in sharp contrast to Sunic in this interview, in his modesty and lack of boastfulness.

BlueEyedDevil on
July 28th, 2009 6:18 pm

I’m glad to see VOR start to take off. I’ve been listening for six months and always disapointed at the lack off comment posts. This is the most posts I’ve seen so far and am now becoming more optimistic about the emerging WN intellectual base.

Great work Sunic. Keep it up.

Mark on
July 28th, 2009 6:33 pm

I think Dr. Sunic is overly generous to even engage anonymous people on the internet, especially when they are rude.

Please don’t take to heart what some of these people say, Dr. Sunic. Your work is greatly appreciated.

Paul on
July 28th, 2009 9:02 pm

STOP IT.

I first posted at No 12 on this thread and was critical of Dr. Sunic in this particular broadcast. I’ve just looked back through the 49 comments now posted, and I’m shocked to find that somewhere on this much abused planet, a lunatic asylum has been forced to empty its wards, and with no regard for the public in general, has released its hopelessly psychotic inmates into the barren wasteland, called cyberspace.

I’ve been listening to and learning from Tom Sunic for some years now. They say “familiarity breeds contempt” and I think my earlier remarks went some way to proving it.

Hear this:

Dr. Tom Sunic, has a brain that can boil water. And when he‘s searching for the appropriate word, it sometimes does. It’s like a huge, organic, mainframe computer, that can get a little noisy as it hurtles through the pages of ten thousand dictionaries and twice as many books which have been translated from a dozen languages and stored in a cranium, twice the size of the dome of St Peters.

In short, drop it and give the man the respect he deserves. It’s all gone a little feral and I’m starting to get suspicious about some of the motives.

Finally, a caveat for those posters who insist on pushing for a war of words with the master-blaster from Croatia: “horrendum est incidere in manus Dei viventis.”

Tom has a western civilized view on things, and I think people don’t understand that. I’ve talked to Tom, and he’s just a great human being, very humble, extremely smart, so if people want to be aggressive towards Tom or other hosts at this point, it will not be tolerated.

White people have been attacked for long enough, and VoR isn’t going to take anything from problem causers on our OWN website, end of story.

Have a nice night,

Mark

Ba Racknophobe on
July 29th, 2009 9:32 pm

OK. Warning taken. No more criticizing Tom Sunic.
His anti-Christianism in this program triggered me off, but I will shut up henceforth.

Thrasymachus on
July 29th, 2009 10:27 pm

My opinion is that Jesus Christ did not teach equality.
The Parable of the Talents shows that he taught that all men are created unequal. This is my opinion.

Many educated people have accepted modern science without rejecting religion and spiritual values. Dale Carnegie tells how he accomplished this back in the 1920s.

It seems that Truth and / or a Supreme Reality are beliefs that highly educated thinkers have accepted, from the ancient Aryan Hindus and their Brahmin, to Socrates and Plato, to the Tao of Ancient Chinese (and Japanese) belief, to the Absolute, the “One, pure, changeless, eternal consciousness, the ground of all apearances. The All conceived as the timeless, perfect, organic whole of self-thinking thought.”

There is abundant evidence that the Creation story in the Bible is not literal but allegorical.

Religion is not a threat to White Survival — theology (man-made ideas about the Divine) and doctrine are. And there is quite a difference! Only religion which does not deny scientific truth is valid.

Dr. Kevin MacDonald has it right on religion and scienc: we can and should have them both, if we are to be civilized and survive.

BR: I know this is a controversial topic. Criticism is acceptable; I am just asking everyone to try to keep it civil.

(As a general remark about VoR comments: I believe that the overall quality is increasing lately. That’s good, and appreciated. Let’s keep it going that way.)

george wells on
July 30th, 2009 1:15 pm

The pagan worldview and the christian worldview are polar opposites. I believe it is healthy to examine both objectively rather than emotionally to really see them clearly.

To be mentally free, a person needs to be able to do this.

One of the problems with the word “pagan” is that it is extremely emotionally charged. Its like the word “anti-semite.” Its a harsh word that limits discussion and prevents many people from looking at the reality.

In terms of the images and words we think with the judeo-christian legacy has imprinted much upon our unconscious and conscious minds.

The white mind has imposed alot of pagan thought with judeo-christianity to harmonize it with innnate ethnic beliefs to make it more acceptable to our minds. The conflict does create a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in many people.

In fact this dissonance is like living with a chronic disease, life is just not as good with it. As Jesus said, “if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off!”

Few will look at the facts. Few can take the cure. Most people will not even admit the limb is gangrenous.

Luis Magno on
July 30th, 2009 5:25 pm

We need to look at both sides of Manifest Destiny, the good and the bad, the dark side and the light side.

Aaron on
August 3rd, 2009 12:27 am

There may be a few things about Christianity that are positive, but unfortunately it is its very worst elements which seem to have triumphed over our lands. And this has everything to do with it being ultimately Levantine and not European.

“The Romans were the strongest and most noble people who ever lived. Every vestige of them, every least inscription, is a sheer delight, provided we are able to read the spirit behind the writing. The Jews, on the contrary, were the priestly, rancorous nation par excellence, though possessed of an unequaled ethical genius; we need only compare with them nations of comparable endowments, such as the Chinese or the Germans, to sense which occupies the first rank. Has the victory so far been gained by the Romans or by the Jews? But this is really an idle question. Remember who it is before whom one bows down, in Rome itself, as before the essence of all supreme values – and not only in Rome but over half the globe, wherever man has grown tame or desires to grow tame: before three Jews and one Jewess (Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the rug weaver Paul, and Maria, the mother of that Jesus). This is very curious: Rome, without a doubt, has capitulated…”
— Friedrich Nietzsche

Listener on
August 3rd, 2009 1:54 am

I certainly think that the guest should be allowed more room to speak his mind, as the host always has future shows to comment further on that interview. After all, a guest is brought up for his opinions to get through.

Listener on
August 3rd, 2009 2:04 am

My opinion is that I think the issue is of lesser relevance to our situation. If our peoples understood the bigger picture, and that day will come, it would/will not be an issue no more or no less than anything else. It is one of many parts of cultural heritage, and its interpretation is quite changeable as well.

Bill on
August 3rd, 2009 2:50 am

“There may be a few things about Christianity that are positive, but unfortunately it is its very worst elements which seem to have triumphed over our lands. And this has everything to do with it being ultimately Levantine and not European.”

If anything, the Christians represented a counter-force to Roman pagan degeneracy. This is why middle class Romans converted. They were sick and tired of the degeneracy of Roman paganism. Even Julian couldn’t save it. And what of the Romans? People speak as though a northern European should regard the Romans as a some sort of higher men. Ha! Why because they sent degenerate homosexual pedophile perverts like Julius Caesar to invade our lands and slaughter thousands of our ancestors? Then to take untold numbers of hostages and extract taxes while imposing on them degenerate Roman institutions like public baths, brothels, and barbaric gladiator games to soften them up? Because they brought along Jewish slave traders to kidnap many men, women, and children and send them into slavery or prostitution in Rome, Middle East, and Africe? You have to be kidding? We’re in trouble now exactly because we’re living under a clone of the Roman system. Don’t talk to me about the greatness of the damned Romans.

Listener on
August 3rd, 2009 4:56 am

By the way its quite pathetic the name calling some use, the sheer tidal wave of insults and name calling against Dr. Sunic. Whilst at the same time saying little or nothing in response to the actual content of what Dr. Sunic posted.

Just stating and repeating attacks and using ad-hominems. Congratulations.

That tells me a lot, and reminds me of the MSM that cannot tolerate those who do not hold the same views as them. Especially some of the people drumming for wars against Iran and those who did against Iraq.

Maybe they should consult some of their own “advises”, given the mind required to even make something like that up.

What is the similarity between the soap creation from Jews during the famous holocaust, and the cutting up of pregnant women and shoting of their unborn children in Palestine?

Answer: They both originate from the same minds. Even if only one of them is true.

(I am not trying to start some kind of blaming of Jews phenomena, on the contrary Im quite opposed to such tendencies, as we need to focus on strenghtening or own ability to handle our situation, and certainly I recognize the rights of Jews in general)

And to the moderators. Are those “constructive and on topic” comments? Hard to have a serious discussion with so many trolls.

Nationalism is not about unconditional self-assertion.

The awareness of ones kin and responsibility of such kind, was never merely imprinted in some religion nor can it be extinguished thereby, It is based on something way deeper and something that is way more important. But that latter to can get lost, if we for some reason lose awareness of it. It is far from too late, anyhow.

Someone said that he “hates who he is”. Huh? Is this about White nationalism or religous nationalism? If one prioritizes ones ethnical very existence, then one is able to discuss all other things as they pertain to that.

Anyhow, I do not agree with everything Dr.Sunic says, but some posts here are absolutely ridiculous and I am surprised they are not viewed as the spam they are.

Listener on
August 3rd, 2009 4:58 am

Bill wrote

“Don’t talk to me about the greatness of the damned Romans.”
___________________-

SIGNED BY ME!

Listener on
August 3rd, 2009 5:55 am

I can recommend the natural history by Pliny the Elder if you want some insights into Roman reasoning, it was anti-nationalistic in the most fundamental sense.

The Roman historian Florus wrote himself not only of the “stupidity of barbarians”, that is those who resisted the empire. But also, in the same arrogant fashion, of how in the eyes of Rome it was all the more insulting when other people were commanded by their leading women. such was the primitive side of Rome. Barring Roman accomplishments and achievers, of course.

Monotheism and Polytheism can be seen as symbolizing the concepts of a “one” kind; globalism. And that of recognizing many different kinds and their differences, respectively. This of course is in relation to practical temporal issues and not the general belief in a creator.

The view of a “good” and an “evil”, that is with emphazation on “a”, is also typical of monotheism. It inevitably leads to a “we against them” picture, and is evident in much of the produces of the western media today, fictional and not. After all, there can only be one kind, and there has to be this one good. On the contrary, it is integrated into the very concept of polytheism to recognize differences and accept them as such.

However, I do not know how relevant it is to our cause to speculate on such matters, how much of that does the average Christian or Pagan for that matter even consider, ever? Does it really bear such practical implications? Or is it maybe a waste of time of discussing quite abstract things.

If our people understood the bigger picture, which again, that time will come, altough how many are left by then is a different question, then this would be less important.

In short, I think that religion (religions, doctrines, whatever) is/are given a too big role here. After all, what we are is quite more fundamental than that. And we need to focus on the kinships and nationalism tied to them, rather than on things that unneccessarely divide us.

Lastly, if you are going to criticize Dr. Sunic. At least READ his writings in the matter, and then respond constructively and on topic. Not by trolling around like some warmonger on TV. If someone cant stand being criticized then poor them.

Listener on
August 3rd, 2009 5:57 am

About Plinys work of course I am not talking about his work being anti-nationalistic. But the Roman motivation for expanding the empire, which he describes.

Bill on
August 3rd, 2009 11:16 am

“I can recommend the natural history by Pliny the Elder if you want some insights into Roman reasoning, it was anti-nationalistic in the most fundamental sense.”

Now you’re on to something. As a kid I remember reading a speech to the troops attributed to one of the German generals just before going into a battle against the Romans where he mocked and ridiculed the multicultural/multiracial polyglot Roman army who fought for nothing but their paycheck. Not only does this illustrate the “diversity” idea that existed even under Rome, but it also reveals the fact that Rome couldn’t even man her own armies! Towards the end, most of the top Roman generals and vast numbers of her foot soldiers weren’t even Roman! The actual Roman racial stock wouldn’t reproduce and what Romans they did have were too weak or lazy to serve. They were too busy screwing young boys, watching people being killed, going to brothels, and divorcing over and over. I have some news: none of this was caused by Christianity. The rot was already entrenched in Roman society long before Christianity. Christianity was the antidote to this rottenness.

And then someone quotes Nietzsche’s words praising the Romans? You quote a guy who never fought, never worked, never married, never reproduced, couldn’t get a date, probably never even fucked a woman in his life, and eventually died a lunatic! Hell, did the guy ever even perform one day of honest labor in his entire life? What the hell did he know about life? Why does anyone listen to the ravings of such degenerates? Oh, but he was anti-Christian, so I guess that makes him worth listening to.

Bill on
August 3rd, 2009 2:00 pm

“You quote a guy who never fought, never worked, never married, never reproduced, couldn’t get a date, probably never even fucked a woman in his life, and eventually died a lunatic!”

I wanted to correct myself. I forgot that Nietzsche probably screwed at least one whore from whom its thought he contracted syphilis which eventually caused him to become insane. What I meant to say was that he never had a normal relationship with a woman. I recall reading that the only women he was ever attracted to rejected him.

I put Nietzsche in the same category as Henry Thoureau, another dysfunctional individual.

Aaron on
August 4th, 2009 1:01 am

Bill wrote:

“Then to take untold numbers of hostages and extract taxes while imposing on them degenerate Roman institutions like public baths, brothels…”

Those were expressions of healthy paganism. These things have their place, and only the anti-nature, sick Christian mind can get worked up over such things.

Aaron on
August 4th, 2009 1:57 am

Bill,

You imply that one of the reasons Nietzsche was worthless was because he never reproduced. Well neither did Hitler. Some men are destined to guide our people with their wisdom or leadership, and they must put all their energies into this instead of into families. They’re still contributing to the cause of the West. Plenty of people will reproduce.

Bill on
August 4th, 2009 5:57 am

“Those were expressions of healthy paganism. These things have their place, and only the anti-nature, sick Christian mind can get worked up over such things.”

You should investigate history. These had nothing to do with “healthy paganism”, but were part of a calculated Roman strategy to weaken the resistance and fighting spirit of the European barbarians. Read the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. He explains all this.

I suppose you would say the German pagans were also sick because they rejected the same Roman degeneracy. The German pagans had a moral code when it came to morality, sex and marriage that was very similar to that of the Christians who came later.

Bill on
August 4th, 2009 6:27 am

“You imply that one of the reasons Nietzsche was worthless was because he never reproduced. Well neither did Hitler.”

No, I gave a list of qualifications. Reproduction was only one.

Hitler didn’t reproduce, but fought in war. He also had a trade, at least for a while. Jesus Christ didn’t reproduce, but was a carpenter by trade and worked until He was around 30.

My point is that men who never fought in war, never learned a trade, never married or raised a family, couldn’t get women, etc. don’t have sufficient life experiences to lecture anyone else about life. Nietzsche was apparently also a weakling who was injured during military basic training.

Such men exist in a void where their ideas aren’t grounded in reality. When someone recommends any philosopher, the first thing I look at is how did the man live. Did he actually have a basis to know anything or was he just a clever bullshit artist?

Nietzsche, Thoreau, Marx, these philosophers were all similar in this regard and basically dysfunctional as human beings. Marx was a bum who allowed his family to live in poverty and filth. Two of his daughters committed suicide. Thoreau was another bum who is most famous for writing about how a man can live by little effort, but was known to the people around him as a leech and free loader who had a curious habit of always showing up to visit at meal time.

Tell me how a man lived and then I’ll decide whether anything he had to say was worth a crap.

I thought the most remarkable part of the interview was Prof. Macdonald’s revelation that the Pope is ethnically Jewish.

I know he will have grounds for this claim and perhaps next time he joins Dr. Sunic they can discuss this.

Bryan Phillips on
August 14th, 2009 1:28 pm

This was a great interview between 2 of the most important figures in the “movement.” I sincerely hope that that Mr. Sunic realizes that the nitpickers on this thread do not represent a majority of listeners.